***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[greg]

I think you're letting your bowlers off a bit lightly aren't you? Sure batting was easier in the afternoon but it was hardly a "flat deck".

 

[Deja moo]

Gee...Gillespies totally lost it, hasnt he ?

 

[Hoggy31]

I heard Langer's playing the next ODI because Watson and Katich are injured

 

[luckyeddie]

Well if the The times today say ****atoo was sliding and took the catch a foot above the ground then thats proof.

My sarcasm-detector is registering 8 at that statement. Perhaps it was a 'photoshopped' picture, just to fool me.

Scally, your side were thrashed. It doesn't happen often, but if you had more grace than a louse people wouldn't give you such a hard time over it.

Oh, what the hell. I'm trying to preach to an idiot.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I heard Langer's playing the next ODI because Watson and Katich are injured

Is Langer even in England currently? It would surprise me if he was ready to play.

If Katich and Watson were both unavailable and Australia needed an extra batsman (which is questionable, given that they still have 7), Hodge would be the obvious choice.

 

[Hoggy31]

I think Langer and co. arrive in England today

 

[luckyeddie]

I think Langer and co. arrive in England today

Visiting relatives.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Aaaah no.

Aus has batted first on 2 consecutive green-tops.

England has had by far the better of onditions in those games.

Did you even see how much Symonds moved it when he bowled? Something similar to the amount Collingwood moved it when he got rid of 4 Australia batsmen who had a ill-judged swipe at him. Gillepsie could have bowled on any track yesterday he would have got hammered - Australia were comprehensively outplayed and got what they deserved. I didn't hear you perpetually moaning about getting an advantage from Trescothick by bowling second at Durham.

 

[Scallywag]

My sarcasm-detector is registering 8 at that statement. Perhaps it was a 'photoshopped' picture, just to fool me.

Scally, your side were thrashed. It doesn't happen often, but if you had more grace than a louse people wouldn't give you such a hard time over it.

Oh, what the hell. I'm trying to preach to an idiot.

LE think before you write, I might be an idiot but I'm not silly enough to buy that Pieterson was sliding and took the catch 1 foot above the ground. I watched it live and what you described is nonsense. Take a look at the replay and then you might understand or just keep trying to dish out the insults I dont really care.

(quack) I wouldent mind a ****ortwo.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Did you even see how much Symonds moved it when he bowled?

Very little to not at all. Symonds never moves it that much mind you, but had it been overcast he would have swung it some, which he didn't at all with the sun out. Collingwood moved the ball all over the place in conditions perfectly suited to his bowling.

I didn't hear you perpetually moaning about getting an advantage from Trescothick by bowling second at Durham.

Trescothick won the toss in that game, and was free to do as he wished. On top of that, the difference was negligable in comparison. Yes, Australia were comprehensively outplayed, but nobody who watched that game could possibly have thought the conditions were even remotely similar between one innings and another. Vaughan himself said as much in his post-match interview.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

LE think before you write, I might be an idiot but I'm not silly enough to buy that Pieterson was sliding and took the catch 1 foot above the ground. I watched it live and what you described is nonsense. Take a look at the replay and then you might understand or just keep trying to dish out the insults I dont really care.

(quack) I wouldent mind a ****ortwo.

Actually, Scallywag is right here. That ball was never taken "a foot above the ground". He got his fingers under the ball, and the ball hit them and pushed them into the grass. Not only did he not take it a foot off the ground, but he didn't take it any distance above the ground at all, as his fingers were pretty much touching the grass when the ball hit his hand. It was, however, a fair catch on replay, while the one Pietersen took at Lords was not, imo.

 

[Scallywag]

Scally, your side were thrashed. It doesn't happen often, but if you had more grace than a louse people wouldn't give you such a hard time over it.

.

OK eddie I'll put on my best dress and some make up next time we lose, and then will you kiss me.

 

[Scallywag]

Actually, Scallywag is right here. That ball was never taken "a foot above the ground". He got his fingers under the ball, and the ball hit them and pushed them into the grass. Not only did he not take it a foot off the ground, but he didn't take it any distance above the ground at all, as his fingers were pretty much touching the grass when the ball hit his hand. It was, however, a fair catch on replay, while the one Pietersen took at Lords was not, imo.

Maybe we only saw it after the slide.

 

[luckyeddie]

LE think before you write, I might be an idiot but I'm not silly enough to buy that Pieterson was sliding and took the catch 1 foot above the ground. I watched it live and what you described is nonsense. Take a look at the replay and then you might understand or just keep trying to dish out the insults I dont really care.

(quack) I wouldent mind a ****ortwo.

I said, you infuriating person (It has to be an act - nobody can be that stupid by accident), that The Times had a photograph in it of Pietersen sliding. I also said that the ball appeared to be a foot above the ground a fraction before it entered his hands. I was at work at the time, haven't seen a replay, and the only television I have seen is about the bombings. That's probably how it should be in England at the moment. Sport should take a back seat here for a while, even if it is your side losing.

Now I realise that you take great pleasure in yanking my chain, because that is the sort of small-minded individual that you are, so I am going to concede your point that there must have been doubt (albeit, it seems, only in your mind). Clearly, the photographer in The Times has his reasons for submitting an obviously doctored picture - perhaps he had a secondary agenda or envisaged a future for himself doctoring Abu Ghraib type images.

Let's just say you're right and I am wrong, eh, then you can go back to pulling the legs off spiders. Fair enough?

One more thing - do you believe in a God? Do you have proof, or did you require that proof before you made that decision?

 

[greg]

Is it a good moment to cite the oft mentioned experiment whereby Dermot Reeve stood in the middle of one of the English test grounds with the ball in his hands some inches off the turf, but the television suggested the ball was touching the ground?

 

[luckyeddie]

Is it a good moment to cite the oft mentioned experiment whereby Dermot Reeve stood in the middle of one of the English test grounds with the ball in his hands some inches off the turf, but the television suggested the ball was touching the ground?

I, er, DOUBT it

 

[social]

Did you even see how much Symonds moved it when he bowled? Something similar to the amount Collingwood moved it when he got rid of 4 Australia batsmen who had a ill-judged swipe at him. Gillepsie could have bowled on any track yesterday he would have got hammered - Australia were comprehensively outplayed and got what they deserved. I didn't hear you perpetually moaning about getting an advantage from Trescothick by bowling second at Durham.[/QUOT

Firstly, where did I mention Durham in my post?

Secondly, thank heavens you were never in charge of pitch assessment for any team in which I played.

Thirdly, all bowlers bar Collingwood, Symonds and Lee/McGrath bowled crap yesterday.

Fourthly, it seemed to me that the English commentators did enough moaning about the state of the pitch for all of us.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Very little to not at all. Symonds never moves it that much mind you, but had it been overcast he would have swung it some, which he didn't at all with the sun out. Collingwood moved the ball all over the place in conditions perfectly suited to his bowling.



Trescothick won the toss in that game, and was free to do as he wished. On top of that, the difference was negligable in comparison. Yes, Australia were comprehensively outplayed, but nobody who watched that game could possibly have thought the conditions were even remotely similar between one innings and another. Vaughan himself said as much in his post-match interview.

You obviously didn't see the one Trescothick was caught off then (and given not out, followed by various Aussies behaving in their usual manner), it moved from the line of leg-stump to 5-6 inches outside off. All this thing about the conditions changing massively is pure guesswork because your bowling wasn't good enough in the main to exploit whatever conditions were there anyway.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Firstly, where did I mention Durham in my post?

Secondly, thank heavens you were never in charge of pitch assessment for any team in which I played.

Thirdly, all bowlers bar Collingwood, Symonds and Lee/McGrath bowled crap yesterday.

Fourthly, it seemed to me that the English commentators did enough moaning about the state of the pitch for all of us.

Firstly & secondly = stupid comments

Thirdly = England's other bowlers still bowled okayish overall (by Flintoff and Harmison's own high standards they weren't very good) compared to Gillespie, the main difference was the batting

Fourthly = those English commentators are usually the same sort of commentators that regardless of what score England make against Australia or vice versa they always say that Australia are favourites and that if England made a high score it was due entirely to the pitch or if Australia got a lowish score it was due entirely to the pitch and they can't wait to see what Lee/McGrath/Hayden/Gilchrist etc. do on it. These commentators who look at the scoreboard and determine the difficulty of the pitch from that are an utter waste of space.

 

[social]

Firstly & secondly = stupid comments

Thirdly = England's other bowlers still bowled okayish overall (by Flintoff and Harmison's own high standards they weren't very good) compared to Gillespie, the main difference was the batting

Fourthly = those English commentators are usually the same sort of commentators that regardless of what score England make against Australia or vice versa they always say that Australia are favourites and that if England made a high score it was due entirely to the pitch or if Australia got a lowish score it was due entirely to the pitch and they can't wait to see what Lee/McGrath/Hayden/Gilchrist etc. do on it. These commentators who look at the scoreboard and determine the difficulty of the pitch from that are an utter waste of space.

So English commentators are biased towards Aus?

When you next wake up, please tell me how this dream ends.